Jump to navigation
George, I can prove I have the numbers on my side. Would you like me to? Would you like me to establish with absolute certainty that the numbers are on my side? Okay, then, sit down, make your self comfortable, and waith for it: OBAMA WAS ELECTED WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY ON A MANDATE FOR CHANGE!
Yes, that's right, people came out of the woodwork embracing the hope he offered, many voting for the first time ever, many shedding years and years of cynicism, many who for the first time who embraced the hope, who believed, "yes we can", who not only shed the cynicism, who not only voted, but who also volunteered. They are the numbers. They made Obama president. It is to them Obama is acxcountable, not Wall Street, not the generals, not the haters in Alabama and Kentucky. It is those people who Obama owed a fight, and owed a unwavering commitment to the campiagn promises and vows he made. It is those people he has betrayed over and over again without so much as even an acknowledgement. It is those who you are telling, on behalf of Obama, "sorry, but really we never could", who will return to the woodwork their cynicism justified and their hope extinguished.
Obama, Geirge, failed them while he proved the power of a marketing message. Good for him, Madison Ave. and eventually the Republicans, bad for America and bad for the world.
But saying that he "proved the power of a marketing message" while the economy continued to collapse all around him, and at the same time saying he was given a mandate for change on particulars, like health care, or anything else. does not add up. Tea parties and media porn from the GOP have demonstrated that an ignorant, sheep-like electorate can turn on a dime. He did a sales job and was given a mandate in a moment of disaster.
Nope, I'm waiting for the polls and the Democrats to support your conviction, FM. I'm old-fashioned that way.
Well, George, having proved his own marketing and messaging capacity to win an election where the opposition was aided and abetted by those very same nefarious forces, the question progressives everywhere ask, why didn't Obama respond to the opposition and the haters drawing upon the same netroots oroganizations that had worked so hard elect him and use the same level of discourse and messaging? Why not, George? Why not? Are you arguing that once elected he lost the support the of those who elected him and his oratorical skills abandoned him? Does he not, as president, have even greater accress to the mass media? I'm sorry, George, your protests ring hollow. Very hollow indeed.
Does he not have greater access to the media? If they were all NYTimes takeoffs, that would have served him very well.
Taking up the sword again after assuming office, depending on the same base of support...? To do what? Go out in the streets? Foment until the next election? Defy fundamental democratic conventions?
Are you saying that, like Mark Antony, he had only to appeal to the crowd?
C'mon FM. You really were into those Saturday morning movies, weren't you? (But then, you probably appeared on the scene too late to have been influenced in that way. ) Perhaps a leftover of 60s optimism then?
No, if his following had the same testicular development as his enemies, they would have arranged coffee parties to challenge the tea drinkers. Would have shown themselves a force to be reckoned with in the husting s of the senators and reps. No, the Obama supporters weren't up to street fighting in that way. Still aren't.
Basically, your argument relies on syllogistic reasoning, FM.. ie: Orators win elections. Obama is an orator. Therefore (forgetting all the intervening variables ) Obama, still the orator, can again bring it off. Doesn't work that way in a dumbed down, frightened world. Seems to me Aristotle didn't think much of the syllogism, either (my memory may fail me there, but I think he insisted on more empirical evidence. )
No, the Obama supporters weren't up to street fighting in that way. Still aren't.
Why should Obama's former followers take to the yellow brick road when THE GREAT OZBAMA is clearly a sham?
Their record lately (this isn't the 60s) indicates they followed a more theoretical bent, for the last 35 years or so, starting with onset of the "Me" generation. Hell, they allowed Bush to take it TWICE. Not bothering to turn out because, well, that's just sillly when it's all such a rotten political game. But I'll bet you know that they ended the lethargy of one-third of a century, ready to emulate the really angry foot soldiers of the reactionary right, right? They were just working up to come out on the streets, eh? And then "the Great Ozbama" let them all down.
Or are they just folks who revert to playing games with people's names, being creative at their keyboards, bringing depth of thought to their protest, without the foggiest idea of how to bring true reform to their benighted country? It doesn't need structural reform to rid it of two centuries of class-based corruption, to make it possible for "the people" to have the foggiest idea of what's in the cards. No, no, we just elect a good guy at the top who sounds good, and the opposition will slink away, suddenly cowed by the moral rectitude of our case, the obvious wisdom in our proposed policies.
Bet you grew up with heroes in white hats too, Al.
Your interpretation of others' writing doesn't appear to be any less murky than your writing style. How does criticism of the guy you keep saying is all that's protecting the world from the Palin yahoos amount to the same thing as supporting THE GREAT MAN?
Of course the USA needs massive changes in its political structure. The point is that Obama is part of that political structure, and that he shouldn't be confused with the solution.
Exactly. George you whole approach is a rejection of logic. You say: Obama must govern like Sarah Palin because once President he lost the power that came from being a candidate (???), but having Obama govern exactly like Sarah Palin is better than having elected Sarah Palin. George, all due respect, you've lost me.
Fm, please quote me where I say Obama has to govern like Sarah...hers would only be a figurehead governance of course, a Caligula.
Al, you are just lost in space. Here is Harold Myerson of the American Prospect, today,saying what I have been saying, in dribs and drabs, in response to your ridiculous fascination with Obamba...or whatever silliness you indulge in:
"...if there's a common feature ot the political landscapes in twhich Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, its's the absence of a vibrant left movement.
"The United States over which FDR presided was home to mass organizations of the unemployed; farmers' groups that blocked foreclosures, sometimes at gunpopint; general strikes that shut downentire cities, and militant new unions that seized factories.
"Both communists and democratic socialists were enough of a presence in the United States to helop shape these movements, generating so much street heat in so many congressional districts that Democrats were compelled to look leftward as they crafted their response to the Depression
"During Lyndon Johnsons presidence, the civil righs movement...provided a new generation of streat heat that both compelled and abetted the president and Congress to enact fundamental reforms.
"In the United States, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or behondliberalism's left frings. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies.
"For his part, Obama won election with something new under the political sun: a list of 13 million people who had supported his campaign. But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to lhelp him winlegislative baqttles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills.
"To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt of Johnson, who benefitted from autonomous movements, Obama WOULD BE ANSWERABLE FOR EVERY LOOPY TACTIC his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to mvoe Obama's agenda.
"The construction of social movements is always a bit of a mystery. The right has had great success over the paast year in building a movement that isn't really for anything but that has channelled anew the fears and loathing of millions of Americans.
"If Glenn BEck can help do that for the right, can't say, Machel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help beuild a movement against the banks or for jobs programs?
"It might welll be too little too late, b ut without left pressure from below, the Obama presidence will end up lookijng for like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's."
Please excuse the bloody double post. But read either bloody one. Myerson lays out far better than I could, the points that I have made over several postings.Rememver this one from yesterday?:
"No, if his following had the same testicular development as his enemies, they would have arranged coffee parties to challenge the tea drinkers. Would have shown themselves a force to be reckoned with in the husting s of the senators and reps. No, the Obama supporters weren't up to street fighting in that way. Still aren't." (Hope that does not confuse you Al. Read Myerson saying the same damned thing).
Would love to see you refute those points rather than engaging in continuing insults. And it's all under the heading "U.S. Congress feels no pressure for reform," just to guide you into the meaning.
And FM, of course I never did say that Sarah should rule - or even could. But if you represent the "liberal left" of the U.S., she's going to be in the White House in some executive position for sure. Meyerson has no more faith in the U.S."left" than I have. The "left", those who actually lived out their ideas. are dead, and their ideas didn't survive McCarthy and the Cold War. Writing in the Land of the Free, Meyerson is just afraid to say how those ideas died and were buried.
If you fellows want to attempt to refute Meyerson, go ahead, have fun, but at least you can't fall back on your excuses so far in this thread.
..in response to your ridiculous fascination with Obamba...
You might consider checking the thread title and take a guess at its subject matter.
What do you think this thread is? This type of squawking is "pressure from below," mild though it may be.
Apart from all that, who is this Myerson guy (besides being another product of the US educational system), and what is a "presidence?"
Some refutation...."who is this Meyerson guy(besides being another product of the U.S.educational system) .
That has to rule him out and everything he wrote, clearly.
And what is a "presidence"? Damned if I know. Is it really, really germane tio your case? (that means relevant...outside of your predilection for puerile nitpicking and name changes).
whoever Meyerson is, he is clearly some kind of communist
"In the United States, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or behondliberalism's left frings" (sic)
"mass movements", the essence of communism/fascism.
A quick Google reveals he is, in fact, basically a communist.
Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?"
Anyway, arise ye starvelings from your slumbers, and &tc.
Yeah, since no such word exists in my Shorter Oxford.
Geez, George (by the way, calling me "Al" is something like calling me "The"), do you think that by citing as an authority someone with such a casual acquaintance with the meaning of words you are strengthening your argument? Are you really encouraging us to jump into a dingy with someone who's level of political sophistication allows him to use, with a straight face, the term "testicular development" as a metaphor? Right there he's alientated 51% of his potential supporters, and made the other 49% or so self-conscious about their equipment.
closing for length